Title: Laboratory Scale Coal And Biomass To Drop-In Fuels (CBDF) Production And Assessment

Abstract

This Final Technical Report describes the work and accomplishments of the project entitled, “Laboratory Scale Coal and Biomass to Drop-In Fuels (CBDF) Production and Assessment.” The main objective of the project was to fabricate and test a lab-scale liquid-fuel production system using coal containing different percentages of biomass such as corn stover and switchgrass at a rate of 2 liters per day. The system utilizes the patented Altex fuel-production technology, which incorporates advanced catalysts developed by Pennsylvania State University. The system was designed, fabricated, tested, and assessed for economic and environmental feasibility relative to competing technologies.

@article{osti_1259873,
title = {Laboratory Scale Coal And Biomass To Drop-In Fuels (CBDF) Production And Assessment},
author = {Lux, Kenneth and Imam, Tahmina and Chevanan, Nehru and Namazian, Mehdi and Wang, Xiaoxing and Song, Chunshan},
abstractNote = {This Final Technical Report describes the work and accomplishments of the project entitled, “Laboratory Scale Coal and Biomass to Drop-In Fuels (CBDF) Production and Assessment.” The main objective of the project was to fabricate and test a lab-scale liquid-fuel production system using coal containing different percentages of biomass such as corn stover and switchgrass at a rate of 2 liters per day. The system utilizes the patented Altex fuel-production technology, which incorporates advanced catalysts developed by Pennsylvania State University. The system was designed, fabricated, tested, and assessed for economic and environmental feasibility relative to competing technologies.},
doi = {10.2172/1259873},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}

The three volumes of this report cover three distinct areas of solar energy research: solar thermoelectrics, solar-wind hybrid systems, and synthetic fuels derived with solar thermal energy. Volume III deals with the conversion of synthetic fuels with solar thermal heat. The method is a hybrid combination of solar energy with either coal or biomass. A preliminary assessment of this technology is made by calculating the cost of fuel produced as a function of the cost of coal and biomass. It is shown that within the projected ranges of coal, biomass, and solar thermal costs, there are conditions when solar syntheticmore » fuels with solar thermal heat will become cost-competitive.« less

The overall objective of this project was to quantify the energy, environmental, and economic performance of industrial facilities that would coproduce electricity and transportation fuels or chemicals from a mixture of coal and biomass via co-gasification in a single pressurized, oxygen-blown, entrained-flow gasifier, with capture and storage of CO{sub 2} (CCS). The work sought to identify plant designs with promising (Nth plant) economics, superior environmental footprints, and the potential to be deployed at scale as a means for simultaneously achieving enhanced energy security and deep reductions in U.S. GHG emissions in the coming decades. Designs included systems using primarily already-commercializedmore » component technologies, which may have the potential for near-term deployment at scale, as well as systems incorporating some advanced technologies at various stages of R&D. All of the coproduction designs have the common attribute of producing some electricity and also of capturing CO{sub 2} for storage. For each of the co-product pairs detailed process mass and energy simulations (using Aspen Plus software) were developed for a set of alternative process configurations, on the basis of which lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, Nth plant economic performance, and other characteristics were evaluated for each configuration. In developing each set of process configurations, focused attention was given to understanding the influence of biomass input fraction and electricity output fraction. Self-consistent evaluations were also carried out for gasification-based reference systems producing only electricity from coal, including integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) and integrated gasification solid-oxide fuel cell (IGFC) systems. The reason biomass is considered as a co-feed with coal in cases when gasoline or olefins are co-produced with electricity is to help reduce lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for these systems. Storing biomass-derived CO{sub 2} underground represents negative CO{sub 2} emissions if the biomass is grown sustainably (i.e., if one ton of new biomass growth replaces each ton consumed), and this offsets positive CO{sub 2} emissions associated with the coal used in these systems. Different coal:biomass input ratios will produce different net lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for these systems, which is the reason that attention in our analysis was given to the impact of the biomass input fraction. In the case of systems that produce only products with no carbon content, namely electricity, ammonia and hydrogen, only coal was considered as a feedstock because it is possible in theory to essentially fully decarbonize such products by capturing all of the coal-derived CO{sub 2} during the production process.« less

The overall goal of the program is to develop design concepts, incorporating advanced technologies in areas such as oxygen production, feed systems, gas cleanup, component separations and gas turbines, for integrated and economically viable coal and biomass fed gasification facilities equipped with carbon capture and storage for the following scenarios: (i) coproduction of power along with hydrogen, (ii) coproduction of power along with fuels, (iii) coproduction of power along with petrochemicals, and (iv) coproduction of power along with agricultural chemicals. To achieve this goal, specifically the following objectives are met in this proposed project: (i) identify advanced technology options andmore » innovative preliminary design concepts that synergistically integrate plant subsections, (ii) develop steady state system simulations to predict plant efficiency and environmental signature, (iii) develop plant cost estimates by capacity factoring major subsystems or by major equipment items where required, and then capital, operating and maintenance cost estimates, and (iv) perform techno- economic analyses for the above described coproduction facilities. Thermal efficiencies for the electricity only cases with 90% carbon capture are 38.26% and 36.76% (HHV basis) with the bituminous and the lignite feedstocks respectively. For the coproduction cases (where 50% of the energy exported is in the form of electricity), the electrical efficiency, as expected, is highest for the hydrogen coproduction cases while lowest for the higher alcohols (ethanol) coproduction cases. The electrical efficiencies for Fischer-Tropsch coproduction cases are slightly higher than those for the methanol coproduction cases but it should be noted that the methanol (as well as the higher alcohol) coproduction cases produce the finished coproduct while the Fischer-Tropsch coproduction cases produce a coproduct that requires further processing in a refinery. The cross comparison of the thermal performance between the various coproduct cases is further complicated by the fact that the carbon footprint is not the same when carbon leaving with the coproduct are accounted for. The economic analysis and demand for a particular coproduct in the market place is a more meaningful comparison of the various coproduction scenarios. The first year cost of electricity calculated for the bituminous coal is $102.9/MWh while that for the lignite is $108.1/MWh. The calculated cost of hydrogen ranged from $1.42/kg to $2.77/kg depending on the feedstock, which is lower than the DOE announced hydrogen cost goal of $3.00/kg in July 14, 2005. Methanol cost ranged from $345/MT to $617/MT, while the market price is around $450/MT. For Fischer-Tropsch liquids, the calculated cost ranged from $65/bbl to $112/bbl, which is comparable to the current market price of crude oil at around $100/bbl. It should be noted, however, that F-T liquids contain no sulfur and nitrogen compounds. The calculated cost of alcohol ranged from $4.37/gal to $5.43/gal, while it ranged from $2.20/gal to $3.70/gal in a DOE funded study conducted by Louisiana State University. The Louisiana State University study consisted of a significantly larger plant than our study and benefited from economies of scale. When the plant size in our study is scaled up to similar size as in the Louisiana State University study, cost of alcohol is then reduced to a range of $3.24/gal to $4.28/gal, which is comparable. Urea cost ranged from $307/MT to $428/MT, while the market price is around $480/MT.« less